From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C2BC432C0 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8C322419 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="BtdLoLvS" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727415AbfKTD3N (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:29:13 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:57682 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727264AbfKTD3N (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:29:13 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1574220551; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2fznDqQ3hjbH7RQSQWp+IHz5IQOinc6XKGYw7yFaTSU=; b=BtdLoLvSy3c6RW3C3RzeJ80OjQB469YsGGbCY2bkLVib10Mdq92JLK6fev+y6zfoc9FKXk +RHiqAQx4dfAA9KsFpf5/OlZ9ihXPx8bNAcmHB927moGU9Vq3ViRngeZAeIPKT4i0yXhE+ eqH0/8HPpmKTRZF0RqUtm/34Xgr46Lo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-267-smDlpc7BM8SWO0-6nOOgLw-1; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:29:07 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 921E7800EBE; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 846E960FC5; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmail21.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail21.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.24]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F8418095FF; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:29:05 -0500 (EST) From: Jason Wang To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Parav Pandit , Jeff Kirsher , davem@davemloft.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Dave Ertman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, nhorman@redhat.com, sassmann@redhat.com, Kiran Patil , Alex Williamson , Tiwei Bie Message-ID: <384616454.35622899.1574220545352.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20191119191547.GL4991@ziepe.ca> References: <20191115223355.1277139-1-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <13946106-dab2-6bbe-df79-ca6dfdeb4c51@redhat.com> <20191119164632.GA4991@ziepe.ca> <20191119134822-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20191119191547.GL4991@ziepe.ca> Subject: Re: [net-next v2 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.68.5.20, 10.4.195.4] Thread-Topic: virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus Thread-Index: KrLwWTXtsJJLy4ZvhGNSng/rRzRP6g== X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-MC-Unique: smDlpc7BM8SWO0-6nOOgLw-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:58:42PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:46:32PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > As always, this is all very hard to tell without actually seeing real > > > accelerated drivers implement this. > > >=20 > > > Your patch series might be a bit premature in this regard. > >=20 > > Actually drivers implementing this have been posted, haven't they? > > See e.g. https://lwn.net/Articles/804379/ >=20 > Is that a real driver? It looks like another example quality > thing. I think the answer is obvious: +static struct pci_driver ifcvf_driver =3D { +=09.name =3D IFCVF_DRIVER_NAME, +=09.id_table =3D ifcvf_pci_ids, +=09.probe =3D ifcvf_probe, +=09.remove =3D ifcvf_remove, +}; >=20 > For instance why do we need any of this if it has '#define > IFCVF_MDEV_LIMIT 1' ? This is just because virtio was done at VF level. Thanks >=20 > Surely for this HW just use vfio over the entire PCI function and be > done with it? >=20 > Jason >=20 >=20